Gary F. Interesting way of moving toward the notion that Peirce did have a general sense of what constitutes goodness or the sum of values. His passing denigration of the 19th-century culture of greed and his implicit allegiance to Christ's values over the creedal church seem to argue for a progressive value system such as that which I argue for. The number of values to which all should subscribe is very few -- I make them to be tolerance, helpfulness, and democracy in the widest sense. Peirce never articulated a notion of how this might work out in practice but if he entertained ideas of rivaling Aristotle he was surely thinking beyond the box of academia. And he was certainly sympathetic to the idea of putting the binary in its place.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > No, I'm not saying that at all. > > What I am saying is that many of us, either often or sometimes, are > 'informationally frozen'. Our 'reasoning' functions within a 'bad > reasoning', i.e., within degenerate Thirdness, as evinced in the types of > 'reasoning' found in that derived within Tenacity, A Priori, Authority. > These types of 'reasoning' reject information. > > My definition of 'relativism' refers to more than the 'cultural/social > sets of beliefs' to which you refer. And indeed, in that case, societal > relativism does say that there are no universal societal values - a point > of view with which I disagree. > > But I also use the term relativism to refer to individual beliefs, which > are ungrounded in objective reality and are instead, 'grounded' in > fiction, in degenerate Thirdness; in Tenacity, A Priori and Authority. In > that sense, relativism refers to beliefs which also have no universal > values - if we understand 'universal values' to refer, not to a universal > morality but to the hard facts of objective reality. > > Edwina > > > > > > > > > On Sat 30/09/17 6:28 PM , [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, are you really saying that individual humans are so > “informationally closed” that they are incapable of reasoning? Or that the > ‘reasoning’ of an individual human cannot involve genuine “Thirdness”? If > so, your analysis based on “modal categories” would appear to be very much > at odds with Peirce's phenomenological analysis as presented in these > Lowell lectures, especially this first one. Not to mention his dictum that > all thinking is dialogic. > > > > Concerning “relativism,” one common form of it argues that the moral > standards of one community cannot be judged as good or bad by another > community. “Relativism” then is not a matter of individual vs. community; > it's a matter of whether it's possible for some ethical ideals to be > really better than others. “Relativism” says no, there are no universal > ethical standards. Stephen Rose's “triadic thinking” says yes, there are. > Peirce's argument concerning logic is that a reasoning process, whether > carried out by an individual or by a community, can be good or bad, and the > validity of the judgment depends (ideally at least) on the real nature of > reasoning itself, and not on the feelings or beliefs of any individual or > community. This would be analogous to an argument for universal ethical > standards (though it's not yet clear to me whether Peirce would carry the > analogy that far). > > > > Gary f. > > > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 30-Sep-17 17:44 > To: Edwina Taborsky ; Stephen C. Rose > Cc: Peirce List ; John F Sowa > Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.4 > > > > The communal might be present but in degenerate form. Remember, there are > three modes of Thirdness - and three types of irrational 'Fixation of > Belief'; i.e., deriving one's beliefs via Tenacity, A Priori or Authority. > > Edwina > > > > On Sat 30/09/17 5:39 PM , "Stephen C. Rose" [email protected] sent: > > Everything does move past the individual to social or community or > whatever name we give the living. Because triadic thinking inevitably moves > to expression and action there is no way the social element cannot be > present in some form. > > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky < [email protected]> > wrote: > > > John, list, > > I acknowledge your point, but even that rock's reaction involves > Thirdness; i.e., the material composition of the rock that defines how it > will react to an external force. > > I think my possibly irrelevant point was/is that Thirdness necessarily > involves the community - either past or present community - but, something > beyond the informational isolation of the individual. > > I agree with your comment that relativism "seems to be a more intellectual > process (reasoning) > than an immediate feeling or reaction. " What I'm trying to include is its > closure to information. > > Edwina > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
